Why is the Media Industry Dominated by the Left Wing?

Miscellaneous General
, , , ,
21

I think the media tends to have a liberal bias because many of their arguments come from an emotional standpoint instead of facts/etc. Unfortunately no one on television seems to want to bring up the question, “Is it moral/ethical for the government to steal money from people who don’t want to live in oppression under a government?” More often than not the question is, “There are so many poor people but all of those fat cats making hundred-million-dollar paychecks can’t afford to give any money so the government can help them?!” I think it’s funny when actors/actresses criticize Fortune 500 CEOs for making million-dollar paychecks and not giving back to society when actors, a lot of the time, make more than the CEOs, give nothing back either, and don’t run a company that operates around the entire world.

You’ll also see that those who call themselves moderate probably think Obama is moderate too, and he’s clearly not.

22

@ Libertyandlife Yep over for like a month I think. Goes to show you how people have no idea what’s going on in the world.

23

The only thing is we still have troops there in an “advisory” role, so we can still have troops die there, so it may be “officially” over, but we are still there.

24

Because it is those types of people that are more adept at spreading ideas, as opposed to thinking them through.

25

It’s a real pity no-one actually got it.

The Media Industry was nationalized way back. For A New Liberty - pg 97

Freedom of Radio and Television

There is one important area of American life where no effective freedom of speech or the press does or can exist under the present system. That is the entire field of radio and television. In this area, the federal government, in the crucially important Radio Act of 1927, nationalized the airwaves. In effect, the federal government took title to ownership of all radio and television channels. It then presumed to grant licenses, at its will or pleasure, for use of the channels to various privately owned stations. On the one hand, the stations, since they receive the licenses gratis, do not have to pay for the use of the scarce airwaves, as they would on the free market. And so these stations receive a huge subsidy, which they are eager to maintain. But on the other hand, the federal government, as the licensor of the airwaves, asserts the right and the power to regulate the stations minutely and continuously. Thus, over the head of each station is the club of the threat of nonrenewal, or even suspension, of its license. In consequence, the idea of freedom of speech in radio and television is no more than a mockery. Every station is grievously restricted, and forced to fashion its programming to the dictates of the Federal Communications Commission. So every station must have “balanced” programming, broadcast a certain amount of “public service” announcements, grant equal time to every political candidate for the same office and to expressions of political opinion, censor “controversial” lyrics in the records it plays, etc. For many years, no station was allowed to broadcast any editorial opinion at all; now, every opinion must be balanced by “responsible” editorial rebuttals.

Because every station and every broadcaster must always look over its shoulder at the FCC, free expression in broadcasting is a sham. Is it any wonder that television opinion, when it is expressed at all on controversial issues, tends to be blandly in favor of the “Establishment”?

The public has only put up with this situation because it has existed since the beginning of large-scale commercial radio. But what would we think, for example, if all newspapers were licensed, the licenses to be renewable by a Federal Press Commission, and with newspapers losing their licenses if they dare express an “unfair” editorial opinion, or if they don’t give full weight to public service announcements? Would not this be an intolerable, not to say unconstitutional, destruction of the right to a free press? Or consider if all book publishers had to be licensed, and their licenses were not renewable if their book lists failed to suit a Federal Book Commission? Yet what we would all consider intolerable and totalitarian for the press and the book publishers is taken [p. 99] for granted in a medium which is now the most popular vehicle for expression and education: radio and television. Yet the principles in both cases are exactly the same.

cont…

26

First off I think we need to recognize that the news media has never been unbiased. When the media was dominated by news papers you would find wildly different takes on the same events from region to region, country to country. An example of this is northern and southern news papers in the mid 1800s, or American and British papers during the revolution (or rebellion depending on what paper you are reading). There is not or has there ever been unbiased news.

With the rise of mass communication through radio and television, the number of news suppliers began to dwindle until at its low point 3 news outlets dominated the media. ABC, NBC, CBS. The 3 networks organized themselves around major television markets like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, etc. (rural south carolina didnt get programing tailored to it) The news will be tailored for those markets. Just as the news has always been tailored for the consumers. You also hire those who you think the audience will identify with.

Urban populations tend to be more liberal than rural populations. So the news was tailored for these liberal populations and people who urban audiences could identify with hired. Also factor in that huge news organizations (as with many large corporations) hire from the most elite labor pools. Those with degrees from ivy league schools etc. Now give this system 75 years to work it becomes obvious as to why those with a more liberal bent came to dominate the media.

But the technological forces that lead to liberal dominance in media are now changing the landscape again. First with the rise of cable news and now the Internet. The old ways are being dismantled and there are now many different points of view and the liberal stranglehold on information is being broken.

I think Conza also has a peice of the puzzle. Federal regulation always seems to lead to a handfull of large providers that are easily manipulated.

27

Just an example of tailoring the programing. Nothing about the news in this story but I think it does help to illustrate my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Purge

28

Relevent videos from aaron0883

29

Oh snap. Don’t tell Noam Chomsky.

30

Dustin, the American media has had a New Deal inclination since…well, the New Deal.

What we need to understand is that New Deal and post-New Deal reforms were very radical and very complicated. In any given circumstances, there would have been horrified mass rejection of sudden and dramatic changes being brought in and pulled back forth so quickly, under a system of policy experimentation.

Some well-intentioned journalists in the media decided that even if their job was to report the dirty hard facts no matter what, they needed a code of ethics to support what they felt was a cohesive society. In order to prevent reaction, and in the name of progress, they had to keep soothing people about policies that even they themselves did not understand, because they were hoping that those policies would succeed faster if people did not oppose reform.

Skepticism about reform and the worries about the great and dramatic costs of reform was labelled Reactionary behaviour in the entire western word, not just US. To be a Reactionary meant that deep down, you probably wanted to invite conflict and create further dissent. Perhaps divide society and gain power.

It’s not that the media initially had a bias per se. They felt that even if all sides are correct, there needed to be limits of tolerable dissent, so that people were optimistic about the future. Exalting Progress and condemning Reactionaries was common in western Europe as well, and even with Agrarians, Liberals, Labours, Conservatives, Christian Democrats, or other parties, all parties started falling in line within the bounds created by the Social Democrats. The media helped them out, even if they did not fully support Social Democrats. Always, they felt there had to be limits of tolerable dissent.

As the fringe lunatic David Icke once said, we have out-sheeped the sheep, because we do not need a shepherd, we keep each other towing the line. The media is one of the first lines of opinion vigilance, and ordinary people follow.

All the same, where there wasn’t a single New Dealer media style bias, there was fragmentation. In Netherlands and Austria, there once used to be separate schools, hospitals, radio stations, newspapers, TV channels,.etc targetted towards Liberals and towards Social Democrats. It was believed that those who want reform should do it in their own small sphere, and not impose it on the rest. It was considered a “victory” when this fragmentation was destroyed, and when a single party could impose its vision and dream on everybody, starting with the time when Bruno Kreisky became the PM of Austria.

31

“What is it about the media that either turns people into liberals or attracts liberals to the industry? Does the roots of this relationship go as far back as college or even further? How does this relate to Fox News?” - Dustin Jussila

Having had some experience with the media, in and out, I’d say it’s the ‘social activist’ role that tends to pull in liberal types. Other posters are right though, saying the media is liberal is one thing, it’s not hard left. And both Fox and other ‘right’ wing outfits have one thing in common with their ‘liberal’ counterparts: they are almost all pro state. Fox has a few libertarian types on because it’s unavoidable if they’re going to aim at the audience that’s right of center.

But, overall I would say it’s the positioning of the journalist in American culture as some kind of champion of the oppressed that attracts on average more left types than right. And I’d say it’s the state monopoly on education and the ability to print money that generally leads to the media, and the population in general, being pro state types of either ilk.

32

You mentioned DADT there.I support it.There’s no right to join themilitary i.e. associate with the state and kill babies in unjust wars.